A seemingly countless number of devices designed to improve the performance of athletic swings have been patented in the history of athletic training. Of these devices a notable subset provide audible, visual or tactile feedback to the user pertaining to the proper timing of the execution of the swing being trained. Of this subset there is still an impressive quantity of patents pertaining to feedback provided by a moveable member propelled by the centrifugal acceleration of the swing along the axis of an elongated member striking a fixed implement attached to said member. Of such devices the following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
Pat. No.Issue DatePatentee3,136,546June 1964Connolly3,137,504June 1964Zordan et al.5,360,209November 1994Mollica5,577,966November 1996DuranUS 2002/0072041 A1June 2002Gallagher et al.U.S. Pat. No. 6,949,036 B2September 2005Ciesar et al.U.S. Pat. No. 8,187,124 B2May 2012Ciesar et al.
While the feedback provided by the devices cited above is indeed valuable, these devises do not quantify the force or velocity of the swing being trained. Without this feedback the effectiveness of these devices is limited.
An additional subset of devices designed to improve the performance of athletic swings seek to quantify the velocity or force generated by the swing. This feedback can then be used by the user to improve the velocity or force of their swing. Of such devices, the following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
Pat. No.Issue DatePatentee4,967,596November 1990Rilling et al.U.S. Pat. No. 6,805,005 B1October 2004ElizondoUS 2002/0094888 A1July 2002LaChance et al.
Again, the feedback provided by these devices is indeed valuable, however these devices do not provide feedback pertaining to the point during the swing in which the maximum velocity or force is achieved. Without this feedback the effectiveness of these devices is limited.
A third, and most recent, subset of devices designed to improve the performance of athletic swings seeks to close the gap between the two subsets previously cited by providing both an audible, visual or tactile feedback to the user; and by attempting to quantify the velocity or force generated by the swing. Of such devices the following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
Pat. No.Issue DatePatentee3,572,706June 1969SchroderU.S. Pat. No. 7,618,328 B2November 2009Davenport et al.US 2002/0034275 A1February 2011KimU.S. Pat. No. 7,993,219 B2September 2011Whitney et al.
The devices cited above provide an improvement over the previous two subsets, unfortunately these devices are also of limited effectiveness in that they require the user to configure the device prior to the execution of the swing. This effectively provides the user with only binary feedback pertaining to the velocity or force generated by any particular swing (i.e. if the swing does or does not meet or exceed the preconfigured velocity or force). Further, it is believed by this author that such binary feedback encourages the user to sacrifice form and tempo in the achievement of the pre-configured velocity or force. Because of this limited feedback the effectiveness of these devices is limited.
Of the prior art, the work of Sutlovich et al. in patent US 2010/0234144 A1, 2010 Sep. 16 is also noteworthy. This patent notes the importance of “making contact at the exact moment that the bat velocity reaches its maximum point,” however the device described in this patent does not quantify the velocity at the moment of impact.
Finally, the author also notes that none of the prior art specimens that can presently be identified provide a means of adjusting the starting position of the sliding members of their designs in order to allow for the training of multiple elements of an athletic swing.